DOCSLIB.ORG

Can Competition for and in the Market Co-Exist in Terms of Delivering Cost Efficient Services? Evidence from Open Access Train O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Can Competition for and in the Market Co-Exist in Terms of Delivering Cost Efficient Services? Evidence from Open Access Train O Transportation Research Part A 113 (2018) 114–124 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra Can competition for and in the market co-exist in terms of delivering cost efficient services? Evidence from open access train T operators and their franchised counterparts in Britain ⁎ Phill Wheata, , Andrew S.J. Smitha, Torris Rasmussenb a Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, UK b Norwegian Railway Directorate, Norway ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: This paper aims to inform an important policy debate in Europe on how best to open up pas- Returns to density senger rail markets to increased competition: and specifically, whether to allow open access train Competition-in-the-market operators alongside franchised (tendered) operators. The paper utilises new British data to Competition-for-the-market analyse the cost side of this debate. Our data is unique in that we have cost data by route level for both the incumbent (corresponding to British franchises) and the open access operators, as op- posed to only having cost data on the incumbent at the network level as in other countries. The open access operators are found to have comparable unit costs to franchised operators. This is unexpected considering the significant returns to density that benefit the larger franchised op- erators. This is subsequently found to be due to lower input prices and an ‘open access business model’ effect that outweigh any density disadvantages. Overall we find that there are negligible cost disadvantages of allowing open access operators to compete with franchised intercity op- erators. 1. Introduction Over the last 25 years or so, Europe has seen a revolution in how its railways are run. Vertically integrated, national railways, in the strictest sense, are now a thing of the past. Successive legislation, starting with European Commission Directive 91/440, means that Europe’s rail systems are now required to separate train operations and infrastructure (at least into separate divisions with their own accounts); see Nash (2013). Furthermore, the European Commission is proposing in the Fourth Railway Package, that, by 2025, competition will be the rule, not the exception. These proposals envisage both increased competition in the market (passenger open access i.e. new operators running alongside incumbent operators) and competition for the market (services provided under public service contracts) (European Commission, 2013).1 A growing number of European countries are pre-empting the Fourth railway package by allowing open access services on profitable routes (Alexandersson, 2009). However, there are potential difficulties associated with introducing direct competition within the existing railway system. One issue concerns ‘cherry picking’ of profitable services from the incumbent, which in turn has issues for the subsidy requirement of the incumbent where certain services cross subsidise others (as is the case in the UK). Another issue is whether the open access operator (OAO) can actually deliver services at the same or lower cost than the incumbent. Empirical evidence from Europe (Wheat and Smith, ⁎ Corresponding author at: Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Wheat). 1 On April 19th 2016 negotiators from the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached a provisional agreement on the market pillar of the Fourth Railway Package, that in broad terms supports the notion that competition will be the rule, not the exception (European Parliament, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.004 Received 8 November 2016; Received in revised form 26 February 2018; Accepted 5 March 2018 0965-8564/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. P. Wheat et al. Transportation Research Part A 113 (2018) 114–124 2015; Smith and Wheat, 2012; Merkert et al., 2010; Cowie, 2002b) suggests that smaller operators, such as the typical size of OAOs in Britain, have, to date, been operating away from the minimum efficient scale and density point, implying that their average costs may be much higher than incumbent operators. However, it is unclear whether there is an offsetting factor which reflects the unique and agile business model of OAOs, as has been the case with low cost air carriers, for example. OAO entry in Britain has been on key routes into London using key mainline routes. OAO differentiates from intercity franchised train operating companies (FIOs – pubic service contractors) on the basis that they run services to and from London and serve markets where direct FIO services do not operate (for example direct services to London from Hull – operated by Hull Trains - and Halifax and Sunderland – operated by Grand Central). Both OAO and FIO offer a mixture of operator specific fares and fares that enable travel on various operators and sell these through both operator specific and national ticket sales channels. On the East Coast mainline, the route with greatest OAO operation, OAO accounts for only 5% of train hours2 and comprises of the East Coast FIO (currently “Virgin Trains East Coast” although in this sample it was called “East Coast Trains”) and the OAO’s of Hull Trains and Grand Central. Thus, whilst they operate over similar routes to FIO, the frequency (density) of operation is substantially smaller. The purpose of this paper is to provide empirical evidence on the costs of OAOs in comparison with FIOs (pubic service con- tractors) in Britain. This analysis is essentially concerned with understanding which of two cost effects is dominant: cost increases through OAOs being below the minimum efficient density output level; or possible cost reductions through such operators adopting a more agile business model and being able to exploit lower input prices (for example through greater freedom over choice of rolling stock and staff). The analysis focuses on the cost debate. It does not consider any wider benefits of open access entry. Our data is unique in that we have cost data by route level for the incumbent (corresponding to British franchises) and the open access operators, as opposed to only having cost data on the incumbent at the network level, which is the case in other countries As such our paper is the first paper to compare cost data between incumbents and open access operators at the route level, since Britain presents a natural experiment to learn about the relative cost differences. The structure of the paper is as follows. After this introduction, Section 2 outlines the received literature on the expected cost impact of OAOs vis-à-vis tendered operators and also reviews the econometric cost studies to date on railway operations. Section 3 discusses the method utilised in this work as well as recapping the work of Wheat and Smith (2015) since their econometric model is interrogated within this paper. Section 4 outlines the data sources for this study. Section 5 presents the results of the analysis of the data in terms differences in returns to density, unit costs, input prices and quantifies the remaining ‘open access business model effect’. Section 6 concludes. 2. Literature review The literature on OAO passenger services has been limited by the small size of the market. Up until the late 2000 s only the UK had any true OAOs of significance, and due to concerns about government finances even this market was limited.3 However, this paper is part of the stronger, but still emerging field studying the cost structure and productive performance of tendered passenger train operators, which has developed following the liberalisation of British and European railways. Therefore, the literature review will be split in two sections, the first reviewing the literature on OAOs passenger services, while the second considers the development of econometric research on the cost of operating passenger rail services. 2.1. The literature on open access operations There is an emerging literature on OAOs. This literature covers regulatory context, trends in fares and evidence on the profit- ability and thus sustainability of OAO (Alexandersson, 2009; Beria et al., 2016; Casullo, 2016; Tomes et al., 2014; Cascetta and Coppola, 2015; 2014; Cascetta et al., 2013). With specific reference to OAO costs, the subject of this paper, reviewing the existing literature on OAOs, most assume no differences in the cost structures for OAOs relative to FIO over and above the general findings of economies of scale and density in the rail industry (Nash and Preston, 1992; Preston et al., 1999, 2002; Preston 2010). These papers sought to expand the literature in the wake of rail liberalisation, both in the UK and Sweden, to inform a growing debate on the potential cost and benefits of OAOs. Due to there not being any econometric literature on train operating company (TOC) costs including OAOs, the assumption of no other cost (dis)benefits has the effect of automatically making these TOCs more expensive (due to the general findings of economies of scale and density in the rail industry), thus less beneficial from a welfare perspective. Therefore, whether more OAO’s should be encouraged depends on the extent of any service benefits arising from innovation and competition. More recently Álvarez-San Jaime et al. (2016) analysed the welfare effects of different access charging regimes in the light of potential future open access competition on high speed lines in Spain. Costs are taken as inputs based on current Spanish train operating costs and do assume decreasing returns to scale for variable costs to reach equilibrium solutions for the number of train services provided. The main finding is that scenarios where access charges reflect marginal costs maximise welfare, whether train services are operated by a vertically integrated railway company or by two competing open access train operators. The discussions on 2 Analysis of Train Hours data (for sample in Table 2) for Hull Trains and Grand Central relative to East Coast Trains.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Railfuture Response to Consultations on the Proposed East Coast Main Line Timetable May 2022
    RAILFUTURE RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS ON THE PROPOSED EAST COAST MAIN LINE TIMETABLE MAY 2022 From: Railfuture Passenger Group & Branches: East Anglia, East Midlands, Lincolnshire, London & South East, North East, North West, Yorkshire & Scotland Submitted to: CrossCountry, Great Northern/Thameslink, LNER, Northern, TransPennine Express Copied to: East Midlands Railway, First East Coast Trains, Grand Central, Hull Trains, Network Rail & ScotRail Index Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 2 Strategic Interventions .................................................................................................................................. 3 LNER ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Responses to LNER Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 6 TransPennine Express .................................................................................................................................. 9 CrossCountry ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Lincs 67
    Has Grantham event delivered a rail asset? The visit of record breaking steam locomotive, A4 pacific Mallard, to Grantham at the RailRail LincsLincs beginning of September, has been hailed an outstanding success by the organisers. Number 67 = October 2013 = ISSN 1350-0031 LINCOLNSHIRE With major sponsorship from Lincolnshire County Council, South Kesteven District Lincolnshire & South Humberside Branch of the Council and Carillion Rail; good weather and free admission, the event gave Grantham Railway Development Society N e w s l e t t e r high profile media interest, attracting in excess of 15,000 visitors (some five times the original estimate). Branch has a busy weekend at One noticeable achievement has been the reconstruction of a siding resulting in the clearing of an ‘eyesore’ piece of land at Grantham station, which forms a gateway to the Grantham Rail Show town. The success of the weekend has encouraged the idea for a similar heritage event Thank you to everyone who helped us The weekend was also a very in the future. over the Grantham Rail Show weekend. successful fund raising event which has However, when the piece of land was cleared and the Up side siding reinstated, it This year, the Rail Show was held in left our stock of donated items very became apparent that Grantham had, possibly, unintentionally received a valuable association with the Mallard Festival of depleted. If you have any unwanted items commercial railway asset. Here is a siding connected to the national rail network with Speed event at Grantham station, with a that we could sell at future events, we easy road level access only yards from main roads, forming the ideal location for a small free vintage bus service linking the two would like to hear from you.
    [Show full text]
  • 31645 Highspeed Rail Bill.Indd
    31645 HighSpeed Rail Bill Modified—26 July 2013 4:45 AM Public Bill Committee HIGH SPEED RAIL (preparation) BILL WRITTEN EVIDENCE PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED PBC (Bill 010) 2013 - 2014 31645 HighSpeed Rail Bill Modified—26 July 2013 4:45 AM © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] Distributed by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from: Online The Houses of Parliament Shop www.tsoshop.co.uk 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail Telephone orders: 020 7219 3890 TSO General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Email: shopwparliament.uk Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Internet: Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 http://www.shop.parliament.uk E-mail: customer.serviceswtso.co.uk Textphone: 0870 240 3701 TSOwBlackwell and other Accredited Agents 31645 31645 HighSpeed Rail Bill Modified—26 July 2013 4:45 AM High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill: Written evidence 3 Contents Camden London Borough Council (HSR 01) Dr Paul Hoad (HSR 02) Dr Chris Eaglen LLB (HSR 03) Andrew Bodman (HSR 04) Wendover HS2 action group (WHS2) (HSR 05) HS2 Action Alliance (HSR 06) Greengauge
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Issues Update
    Briefing Paper to the Energy and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Commission 4th March 2014 Rail Issues Update Briefing Paper of the City Regeneration and Policy Manager 1. Purpose of the Briefing Note This report is an interim position statement on rail issues following the rail themed meeting of this commission with rail industry representatives in June 2013. Rail industry representatives have been invited to attend this commission to answer questions and give further updates. 2. Rail Issues for Consideration 2.1. Electrification 2.1.1. First Hull Trains (FHT) have submitted a proposal to the Government in which they would raise the funding to deliver electrification of the route between the East Coast Main Line (North of Doncaster) through to Hull via Selby. This could potentially bring electrification forward to 2016/17 (The Government currently does not plan to electrify this section until some unspecified time after 2019). FHT‟s proposal appears to depend on the Government releasing the funding to „buy-back‟ the completed electric infrastructure. Exactly how much (and when) the Government agree to pay is critical to FHT‟s fund raising and to any request for public funding support. FHT have requested a grant from the LEP (Local Growth fund) and a loan (Public Works Loan Board) from the LEP / Council towards the total scheme cost which is believed to be around £94m 2.1.2. The Council, business leaders and MP‟s have been lobbying ministers for early scheme funding and they have agreed to meet a delegation from the City and the East Riding on the 25th February (verbal update to be given).
    [Show full text]
  • Application Form P
    Form P Application to the Office of Rail Regulation for a passenger track access agreement, or amendment to a passenger track access agreement under sections 17-22A of the Railways Act 1993 1. Introduction Please use this form to apply to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) for: • directions under section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 for a new track access contract. Section 17 allows companies who want the right to use a railway facility (including Network Rail’s network) to apply to ORR for access if they are not able (for whatever reason) to reach agreement with the facility owner. • approval under section 18 of the Railways Act 1993 for a new track access contract. Section 18 allows companies to apply for approval if they have agreed terms with the facility owner. • approval of a proposed amendment (agreed by both parties) under section 22 of the Railways Act 1993 to an existing track access contract. • directions under section 22A of the Railways Act 1993 for an amendment to an existing track access contract. Section 22A allows anyone seeking an amendment to an existing track access contract which allows the operation of more extensive services to apply for a compulsory amendment if they are not able (for whatever reason) to reach agreement with the facility owner. If it is the facility owner, Network Rail will carry out a pre-application consultation. In this case fill in this form up to section 7.3. You should fill in the rest of the form after the consultation and before applying to ORR.
    [Show full text]
  • Leeds Thesis Template
    Understanding the Relationship Between Capacity Utilisation and Performance and the Implications for the Pricing of Congested Rail Networks John Alexander Haith Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds Institute for Transport Studies February, 2015 - ii - The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own, except where work which has formed part of jointly-authored publications has been included. The contribution of the candidate and the other authors to this work has been explicitly indicated below. The candidate confirms that appropriate credit has been given within the thesis where reference has been made to the work of others. Elements of the work contained in this thesis have previously appeared in the published paper:- Haith, J., Johnson, D. and Nash, C. 2014.The Case for Space: the Measurement of Capacity Utilisation, its Relationship with Reactionary Delay and the Calculation of the Capacity Charge for the British Rail Network. Transportation Planning and Technology 37 (1) February 2014 Special Issue: Universities’ Transport Study Group UK Annual Conference 2013. Where there is specific use of the contents of the above paper in this thesis reference is made to it in the appropriate part of the text. However, general use of the work contained in the paper is particularly made in Chapter 5 (Methodology), Chapter 6 (The Data Set) and Chapter 7 (Results). It should also be noted that all research and analysis contained in this thesis (and the paper) was conducted by the candidate. Secondly, substantial additional analysis was conducted between the finalisation of the paper and the writing of this thesis meaning that the results of the research have expanded significantly.
    [Show full text]
  • East Coast Trains Limited Draft Agreement Section 17
    TRACK ACCESS CONTRACT (PASSENGER SERVICES) Dated [ ] Between NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED and EAST COAST TRAINS LIMITED 428317 CONTENTS Clause Page 1 INTERPRETATION 1 1.1 Definitions 1 1.2 Interpretation 6 1.3 Indemnities 7 2 NETWORK CODE AND TRACTION ELECTRICITY RULES 7 2.1 Incorporation 7 2.2 Modifications to the Network Code or the Traction Electricity Rules 8 2.3 Compliance by other operators 8 3 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT AND DURATION 8 3.1 Effective date 8 3.2 Conditions precedent to Clause 5 8 3.3 Obligations to satisfy conditions precedent to Clause 5 9 3.4 Consequences of non-fulfilment of conditions precedent to Clause 5 9 3.5 Expiry 9 3.6 Suspension and termination 9 4 STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE 9 4.1 General standard 9 4.2 Good faith 10 5 PERMISSION TO USE 10 5.1 Permission to use the Routes 10 5.2 Meaning 10 5.3 Permission under Clauses 5.2(e) and 5.2(f) 10 i 428317 5.4 Changes to Applicable Engineering Access Statement and Applicable Timetable Planning Rules 11 5.5 Engineering Access Statement, Timetable Planning Rules and Restrictions of Use 11 5.6 The Services and the Specified Equipment 11 5.7 Performance 11 5.8 Stabling 11 6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF TRAINS AND NETWORK 11 6.1 General 11 6.2 Trespass, vandalism and animals 11 6.3 Safety 12 6.4 Use of Railway Code Systems 12 6.4.1 General 12 6.4.2 Provision of Train Consist Data 12 7 TRACK CHARGES AND OTHER PAYMENTS 12 8 LIABILITY 12 8.1 Performance Orders in relation to breach 12 8.2 Compensation in relation to breach 13 9 NOT USED 13 10 LIABILITY - OTHER MATTERS 13
    [Show full text]
  • Delay Attribution Board Members and Representation
    OFFICIAL Delay Attribution Board Members and Representation Franchised Passenger Class Band 1 DAB Representative Abellio ScotRail Veronica Bolton Avanti West Coast Trains Govia Thameslink Railway Franchised Passenger Class Band 2 Abellio East Anglia London & South Eastern Railway Phil Starling Arriva Rail North London North Eastern Railway First Great Western Ltd West Midlands Trains First MTR South Western Railway Franchised Passenger Class Band 3 Arriva Rail London Merseyrail Electrics Steve Longmore Chiltern Railway Company MTR Crossrail Cross Country Trains Serco Caledonian Sleepers East Midlands Trains Trenitalia C2C First TransPennine Express Keolis Amey Wales Non-Franchised Passenger Class Chinnor and Princes Risborough Nexus Tyne and Wear Jonathan Seagar East Coast Trains North Yorkshire Moors Railway Eurostar International Peak Rail Ffestiniog Railway Rail Express Systems Grand Central Railway Company Vintage Trains Heathrow Express West Coast Railway Company Hull Trains Company Yorkshire Supertram Locomotive Services Limited Non-Passenger Class companies - Band 1 DB Cargo Nigel Oatway Freightliner Non-Passenger Class companies - Band 2 Amey Rail Ltd GB Railfreight Mike Byrne Babcock Rail Harsco Rail Balfour Beatty Plant Rail Express Systems COLAS Rail Ltd Rail Operations Group Devon and Cornwall Railways Victa Railfreight Direct Rail Services VolkerRail Freightliner Heavy Haul Network Rail Alex Kenney Andrew Rowe Georgina Collinge Scott Provan Paul Harris Anna Langford Non-Voting Members Chairman: Richard Morris Secretary: Richard Ashley April 2021 .
    [Show full text]
  • Framework Capacity Statement 2021
    OFFICIAL Framework Capacity Statement 2021 Including consultation on alternative approaches to presenting capacity information Network Rail April 2021 Network Rail Framework Capacity Statement April 2021 1 OFFICIAL Contents Framework Capacity Statement Annex: Consultation on alternative approaches 1. Purpose 4. Background to the 2021 consultation 1.1 Purpose 4 4.1 Developments since 2016 17 4.2 Timing and purpose 17 2. Framework capacity on Network Rail’s network 2.1 Infrastructure covered by this statement 7 5. Granularity of analysis – examples and issues 2.2 Framework agreements in Great Britain 9 5.1 Dividing the railway geographically 19 2.3 Capacity allocation 11 5.2 Analysis at Strategic Route level 20 5.3 Analysis at SRS level 23 3. How to identify framework capacity 5.4 Constant Traffic Sections 25 3.1 Capacity of the network 13 3.2 Capacity allocated in framework agreements 13 6. The requirement 3.3 Capacity available for framework agreements 14 6.1 Areas open for interpretation in application 28 3.4 Using the timetable as a proxy 14 6.2 Potential solutions 29 3.5 Conclusion 15 6.3 Questions for stakeholders 30 Network Rail Framework Capacity Statement April 2021 2 OFFICIAL 1. Purpose Network Rail Framework Capacity Statement April 2021 3 OFFICIAL 1.1 Purpose This statement is published alongside Network Rail’s Network current transformation programme, to make the company work Statement in order to meet the requirements of European better with train operators to serve passengers and freight users. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/545 of 7 April 2016 on procedures and criteria concerning framework Due to the nature of framework capacity, which legally must not agreements for the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • A Systems Design Study Introducing a Collection Point for Baggage Transfer Services at a Railway Station in the UK
    Urban Rail Transit (2019) 5(2):80–103 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40864-019-0101-4 http://www.urt.cn/ ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS A Systems Design Study Introducing a Collection Point for Baggage Transfer Services at a Railway Station in the UK 1 2 Ho Ki Yeung • Marin Marinov Received: 4 January 2019 / Revised: 26 April 2019 / Accepted: 3 May 2019 / Published online: 24 May 2019 Ó The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Railway transport has shown a steady growth in 1 Introduction passenger numbers over the past 20 years across the UK. Passengers travel with luggage. It has been forecasted that Because of the absence of baggage transfer service in all of there will be a reduction of ‘‘luggage racks-to-seats’’ ratio the UK’s train stations as part of the urban rail transit in the future passenger train fleet. There are currently no systems in the UK, the main aim of this study is to baggage transfer systems at any of the train stations as part investigate the possibility of designing and launching a of the urban rail transit system in the UK. Hence, the new baggage transfer system at Newcastle Central Station, purpose of this study is to investigate the possibility of which can serve passengers and their luggage travelling to having a baggage transfer service at Newcastle Central various destinations in the region and across the country. Station, which can serve different travel destinations. A This new service is intended to facilitate the passengers’ simulation modelling study of different parts of the bag- boarding and alighting process on trains for those carrying gage check-in shop within the railway station is offered.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's Rail Delivery Group, Comprising the Chief Executives of the Rail Owning Groups, Freight Operators and Network Rail T
    Written evidence from the Rail Delivery Group (ROR 01) 1. This is the response of the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) to the Transport Select Committee’s call for evidence on the reform of the railways. 2. The RDG welcomes the Government’s support for the RDG contained in the Command Paper ‘Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First’, which was published today. The Paper calls on the Rail Delivery Group to provide leadership to the industry and to respond to the Government’s strategic challenges. The Command Paper lays out the Government’s vision for an expanding and efficient railway that meets the needs of passengers, freight users and taxpayers. The Government sees the Rail Delivery Group leading the industry in driving up efficiency and demand for the railway. This is a challenge that the Group accepts. 3. The Command Paper calls on the Rail Delivery Group to lead the rail industry in working together to deliver a more efficient, more affordable railway. The Rail Delivery Group is pleased that the Government has recognised that the Group is taking and shaping the industry’s agenda for a sustained programme of improved management and running of the rail network. 4. The Command Paper lists the six priority areas being addressed by the Group • Asset, programme and supply chain management; • Contractual and regulatory reform; • Technology, innovation and working practices; • Train utilisation; • A whole-system approach; and • Industry planning 5. The Rail Delivery Group was created to unlock efficiencies that will improve Britain’s railways. In its first nine months the Group has identified opportunities for a range of savings, for example in asset management through earlier involvement of the operators in planning work on the network.
    [Show full text]
  • System Operator Strategic Business Plan
    System Operator Strategic Business Plan February 2018 System Operator Strategic Business Plan 1. Foreword by Jo Kaye, Managing Director, System Operator I am pleased to set out, in this Strategic Business Plan, our plan and vision We provide a whole-system, long term view, informed and integrated by the for the railway’s System Operator in Control Period 6 (CP6) and beyond. detailed knowledge we have from planning the network and by the industry- wide interfaces we have with every train operating customer, route and Role of the System Operator infrastructure manager. Our services extend beyond Network Rail. Trains already run between Network Rail routes and infrastructure owned by other Why we exist (our role) infrastructure managers, such as High Speed 1 (HS1), Transport for London We plan changes to the GB railway system so that the needs of passengers (TfL), Nexus and Heathrow Airport. and freight customers are balanced to support economic growth. The network needs to be planned as an integrated whole, irrespective of What we want to be (our vision) ownership. This will be particularly important in the next few years, as Our vision is to become the recognised expert trusted by decision makers to Crossrail and High Speed 2 (HS2) become operational, and as other plan the GB railway. infrastructure managers emerge. How we will do this (our strategic intent) We are a distinct but connected part of Network Rail. The separation of our We will support each other to realise our full potential, building confidence role in managing capacity allocation from the routes allows route businesses and being a better System Operator.
    [Show full text]